Newlywed woman kills her husband after 8 days of marriage by shoving him off a cliff from behind, and still only gets a second degree murder charge. Because she totally didn’t mean to kill him, right? Lots of people survive being shoved off cliffs. :/

Jordan initially spun a web of pure and utter bullshit, and then eventually admitted that oh, oops, she pushed Cody off the cliff. Because they had been arguing and he beat her mercilessly grabbed her arm. To the surprise of no one, including Cody’s family, Jordan is up on murder charges.

Because the crime happened in a federal park, she is not being charged under Montana statutes, but under federal ones, which distinguish between different types of murder.

First degree murder is when a killing is planned and carried out.

Second degree murder is when someone is killed, but it wasn’t planned.

Jordan wooed Cody to the edge of the cliff and when his back was turned, she shoved him over. She planned it. Picked a good spot and got him to turn his back.

And then he fell for her all over again.

The way we treat people in the criminal justice system is ground zero in the definition of human rights. Justice is blind. Any time justice sees skin color or class or ability or gender and applies a harsher penalty to some humans on the basis of one of those factors, that human’s basic rights have been violated.

A conviction for first degree murder in the United States carries the possibility of the death penalty. I don’t agree with the death penalty precisely because it is not applied to ALL humans fairly and equally.

In general, both the death sentencing rate and the death row population remain very small for women in comparison to that for men. Actual execution of female offenders is quite rare, with only 571 documented instances as of 12/31/2012, beginning with the first in 1632. These executions constitute about 2.9% of the total of confirmed executions in the United States since 1608.

Curious silence from the feminist brigade when it comes to making sure men and women are treated equally before the law, no? In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Feminists argue that women should not be in jail, period. In the UK, the Women’s Justice Taskforce is making headway in eliminating women’s prisons altogether.

Roma Hooper, director of Make Justice Work, which campaigns to reform short-term prison sentences, said: “The increasing incarceration of women is a disgraceful situation which must be challenged.”

Well, that’s one way to eliminate gender disparity in sentencing. Just make sure women don’t get sentenced at all.

Lest anyone think that such a blatantly discriminatory and sexist policy is beyond the tolerance of the government and the British public, it should be noted that it was only last year that British judges were recommended to issue lighter sentences to women offenders, regardless of their offense. That recommendation was issued by the Equal Treatment Bench Book, published by the Judicial Studies Board (JSB).

Yes, that is correct, the Equal Treatment Bench Book recommended that half the population, based solely on sex, should get lighter sentences for the same crimes than the other half.

Gee, what can go wrong with that? Women will really be able to “Lean In” to their criminal careers in the UK, won’t they? Those two guys who slaughtered Pt. Rigby in broad daylight only need to get their girlfriends to wield the machetes next time.

And that really should be the only thing that factors into deciding if Jordan is guilty of first degree murder. But it’s not.

Jordan is a woman, and therefore she gets a pass. It begins with not even facing the harshest penalty. 2nd degree murder? And it will continue right up to conviction and sentencing.

Male violent offenders receive, on average, an additional 4.49 years on their sentences compared to women, while gender differences for property and drug crime (3.14 and 2.35 years, respectively) are considerably lower.

Why is this? Why do women get the pussy pass? What is the rationale behind lenient sentencing for women, even when they commit the exact same crime as men?

The Chivalry Thesis posits that women are seen as less morally culpable than men, and are therefore treated delicately and absolved of responsibility.

The Chivalry Thesis posits that gendered stereotypes about both women and men inﬂuence sentencing outcomes according to the sex of offenders. Sometimes called paternalism, chivalry asserts that women are stereotyped as ﬁckle and childlike, and therefore not fully responsible for their criminal behavior. Women therefore need to be protected by males who, with all due gallantry, are portrayed as wanting to minimize any pain or suffering women might experience.

The Chivalry Thesis predicts that women will receive more lenient sentencing for stereotypically female crimes, like shoplifting. The more “feminine” the crime, the more men will feel the need to protect the poor darling, and make sure her sentence doesn’t cause her any suffering. When women commit manly crimes like murder, the Chivalry Thesis predicts that women will be treated harshly because they are violating gender norms as well as the law.

But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Women get even more lenient sentencing when their crimes are strongly associated with men and masculinity.

So what is going on? Why do we, as a culture, sentence women more lightly, assuming we can even be bothered to charge and convict them?

Females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

It’s tempting to jump on the “women are helpless and never responsible for anything they do” meme because it is so strongly related to feminist thought. #rapeculture

But disparity in sentencing has been going on for a very, very long time.

Here’s my theory: it’s a key part of the Myth of Male Dominance aka “patriarchy”. A word on “patriarchy”, if I may. At no point in our collective North American history has it ever been acceptable to kill a woman for no reason OTHER than the fact that she’s a woman with two notable exceptions, one of which is not an exception at all, and one of which is a “right” fiercely protected by feminists.

1. During slavery, it was acceptable to kill a woman if she happened to be black. In other words, it was acceptable to kill SLAVES. Men and women alike.

2. It is acceptable, and remains acceptable to this day, to kill women who are not yet born.

You have to go all the way back to the Salem Witch Trials to find the wholesale slaughter of women, and even then, a sham trial was enacted. The principle of justice may have been adulterated beyond recognition, but it still held enough sway to convince adjudicators that a “trial” was required.

…although peasant males monopolize positions of authority and are shown public deference by women, thus superficially appearing to be dominant, they wield relatively little real power. Theirs is a largely powerless authority, often accompanied by a felt sense of powerlessness, both in the face of the world at large and of the peasant community itself.

…a non-hierarchical power relationship between the categories “male” and “female” is maintained in peasant society by the acting out of a “myth” of male dominance.

The perpetuation of this “myth” is in the interests of both peasant women and men, because it gives the latter the appearance of power and control over all sectors of village life, while at the same time giving to the former actual power over those sectors of life in the community which may be controlled by villagers. The two sex groups, in effect, operate within partially divergent systems of perceived advantages, values, and prestige, so that the members of each group see themselves as the “winners” in respect to the other.

Neither men nor women believe that the “myth” is an accurate reflection of the actual situation. However, each sex group believes (or appears to believe, so avoiding confrontation) that the opposite sex perceives the myth as reality, with the result that each is actively engaged in maintaining the illusion that males are, in fact, dominant.

Now, the reality is that men still overwhelmingly control the justice system in the United States.

Most police officers are men.

In 2007, about 1 in 8 local police officers were women, compared to 1 in 13 in 1987.

Men are very firmly in control of the judiciary, which is an institution of formalized power. It’s an area where the myth of male dominance plays out – a trade we all make to disguise the fact that women continue to wield a disproportionate amount of the real power.

Feminism is interested in hanging on to all the traditional, informal power of women, and indeed tries hard to formalize that power into laws where women and men’s power intersect: child custody, divorce and alimony being prime examples, while attempting to wrest formal power from men.

Feminists want both powers: formal and informal.

Two problems with that little project:

Where does that leave men?

What do you think the world will look like if feminists succeed in making men socially powerless and then humiliating them to boot? Feminists are nowhere near that goal when it comes to the men who command the formal institutions of power, but they have certainly created a world in which men who don’t have access to those formal institutions – meaning MOST men – have indeed been rendered powerless.

Second problem? Feminists have not considered what they will be giving up when the “myth” is shattered.

To put it bluntly, they will be giving up the privileges that have always accompanied women, including the right to lenient treatment when sisters go off the fucking rails and shove their husbands off cliffs.

The reason the judiciary is still enmeshed in treating women more leniently is precisely BECAUSE the judiciary is still in the control of men, with the exception of family courts.

The myth of patriarchy ultimately protects women, even the ones who are very, very unworthy of protection.

But it requires a trade.

Given the fact that peasant women actually wield considerable amounts of power, several anomalies remain: both men and women behave publicly as if males were dominant, while at the same time male peasants seem to be characterized by a felt lack of power. I suggested a model to explain these apparent contradictions, in which male dominance is seen to operate as a myth, while a balance is actually maintained between the informal power of women and the overt power wielded by men. Furthermore, the power of both depends on the persistence of the myth, which itself is maintained by a degree of ignorance on the part of both groups as to how the system actually operates.

Ultimately, it comes down to understanding, and respecting one another. And understanding that when humans fail, men or women, we embrace the myths of our society so we can all keep functioning.

The most important point to be made is that it is only when we stop looking at male roles and forms of power as the norm and begin to look at female arrangements as equally valid and significant, though perhaps different in form, that we can see how male and female roles are intertwined and so begin to understand how human societies operate.

In the case of lenient sentencing for women who are monsters, powerful men send a message to all the other women that they will not be held accountable for the actions of monstrous sisters. All of which depends on women being, by and large, not terribly monstrous.

Men sentence other men more harshly because they hold them to a higher standard when it comes to respecting formal power, because formal power IS male power.

Modern, liberal feminism has shattered the myth. Feminists rage and scream and cry at the power men wield in the formal institutions that govern our world, but refuse to relinquish one iota of their traditional informal power.

Of course there is a price to pay for surrendering formal power in favor of informal power. It means that our sons, our brothers, our fathers, our nephews, our cousins, our friends can be shoved off a cliff and the murderess will face little to no consequence for that.

In return for that sacrifice, we get the protection of men.

Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.

Warren Buffett

It’s really what it comes down to. Do you value men or do you not?

It’s seems almost obscene to say that valuing men means you are willing to sacrifice a few to murderous women, but in truth, the only obscene thing is that women are prepared to sacrifice those men without giving up any of their own privileges.

Look on the bright side, at least Cody’s death was far less painful than what he would have gone through in divorce court.

TMG

Excellent, but in this case you’d do better to exchange the “feminist” label with “women.” Women, many without any allegiance to Feminism, want everything their way. They have no understanding of the “balance of power” that you describe, and they don’t want to. They want to eat all the cupcakes without ever getting fat. They want to throw themselves headlong into danger without ever feeling unsafe. And they want all the privileges of being successful adults without working for them, or bearing accountability. They will support ANYONE who provides them with this, and right now it’s the rad fems and their male enablers. That’s why we do not see multitudes of women standing up to feminism, because most (not all) women are selfish, solipsistic creatures who really don’t give a shit what happens to men.

Sorry to burst your bubble TMG, but your description of women also applies to men. I’d sure like to be able to eat all the junk food I want and never get fat. I’d like to have everything I want without having to work for it. People, men and women both, are intrinsically lazy and selfish. Their means for achieving their goals differ because their tools differ. And yes, there are exceptions, but as a general rule of thumb, you won’t go wrong by assuming that anyone you meet will look out for #1 first and foremost.

TMG

So that’s why men have lobbied to create a behemoth men’s rights lobby that works tirelessly to grant them unearned privileges and supremacy over women.

Oh wait. We haven’t.

Cram your false equivocations.

jabrwok

Non sequitur. I was commenting on human nature, not the effectiveness of men vs. women at free riding on the efforts of the other. Do you deny that people in general, of either sex, are lazy and selfish? Do you imagine that most men wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to enjoy a life free from consequences?

feeriker

Do you deny that people in general, of either sex, are lazy and selfish?

The difference is that men seldom ever have the option of succumbing completely to the worst of their lazy and selfish impulses and get what they want by “riding the tide” and having things handed to them on a platter. They have to stand up and take responsibility for themselves and their own well-being. Unless they manage to find a “sugar momma” to latch onto who will coddle them through adulthood in exchange for sex and “househusbandry,” or unless they are the offspring of indulgent and rich parents who will let them wallow in adultolescence (both VERY rare), NO ONE is going to meet their needs and get them to where they want to go in life except they themselves.

Women in today’s society, OTOH, CAN and DO succumb to these impulses of laziness and greed. All they have to do is just find the right man-schlub to trap and shame/coerce into giving them what they want (and if he doesn’t come across, they can just toss him and trade up for a better prospect, reaping cash and prizes in the process).

So yes, while you are correct in that BOTH sexes share a very potent and nastily destructive “laziness and selfishness” gene, it is really only women who are in any position today to capitalize on it consistently.

Master Beta

To be fair, I think that’s just because the male equivalent doesn’t work. We men can’t get what we want by crying/complaining – women can.

Master Beta

To be fair, I think that’s just because the male equivalent doesn’t work. Men can’t get what they want by crying/complaining, where as women can.

It’s funny how you write this on the blog of one of these “selfish, solipsistic creatures,” as you put it, and yet despite her selfishness and solipsistic nature, she doesn’t delete you comments outright, and in fact, even agrees with what you’re saying, despite the fact that it doesn’t benefit her in any way to leave it up, and by any standard should be as offensive to her as anything could possibly be.

It’s also funny to me how you would be pissed if any woman tried to attach such labels to your gender.

You are, in every way, exactly the same as a feminist when you spout nonsense like this. You just root for men instead of for women. Every nasty thing you’ve ever said on this blog about women and feminists could just as easily apply to you and men like you.

Now you’ll tell me that its different when you do it because they started it… Which, incidentally, is exactly the justification that feminists use to justify their hateful bullshit.

You have become the thing you hate. What are you going to do about that?

someguy

It’s funny how you write this on the blog of one of these “selfish, solipsistic creatures,” as you put it, and yet despite her selfishness and solipsistic nature, she doesn’t delete you comments outright, and in fact, even agrees with what you’re saying, despite the fact that it doesn’t benefit her in any way to leave it up, and by any standard should be as offensive to her as anything could possibly be.”

Because JB is among tiny tiny sliver of women who lived a life that allowed her to discipline herself and keep her repitilian animal side (which both men and women have) under some level of control for the sake of civility. Most women have no such incentive to do so., while a man’s success and heck even his very life depends on his ability keep his darker animal side in control. He who fails at the task is punished severely.

“You are, in every way, exactly the same as a feminist when you spout nonsense like this. You just root for men instead of for women. Every nasty thing you’ve ever said on this blog about women and feminists could just as easily apply to you and men like you.”

SO talking about and describing the darker side of women, and showing that they aren’t the darling angels that we are all raised to believe = being just like the feminists? History has ample examples of men being bad and MSM barrages us of men’s darker sides 24/7 while portraying women as morally superior (or rather just plain superior overall). Everyone and their dog are aware of how evil men can be. But as soon as a discussion about how women are also selfish creatures and only pursue their self-interest starts, then its somehow bad?? Considering the fact that you are a woman, it comes as no surprise. Marriage 1.0 depends on men’s foolish false assumption of the innocence of women and hence why you and your female ilk (99+% of you) are scared of the truth surfacing. You want to keep the charade going. You want men to live a lie (as outlined by JB’s article on peasant society). feminism was inevitable when technology made women depend less on men and hence decide that the whole charade and joke of marriage was meaningless. And men are wising up and realizing that the only control they ever even need to be happy is over their own lives without some woman breathing down his neck 24/7. Cheers to MGTOW

I agree that the dark side of men is highlighted in the media, while womens’ darks sides are celebrated as being liberating. See my post below about pop culture. I’m not going to argue that women are getting a free pass when it comes to bad behavior (or at very least, massively reduced consequences over those that man would see in the same situation). The problem that I have is your attempt, and TMG’s attempt, to spin this like EVERY SINGLE WOMAN is getting away with bad behavior, and EVERY SINGLE WOMAN is a bastard. That narrative is no different than the “men suck” campaign of the feminists, because it simply isn’t true.

I’m only going to presume that you wrote your response to me prior to reading what I wrote below, because that’s the only way that your arguing that men get treated more harshly than women, as if I disagreed with that, makes sense.

I’m not saying that pointing out the dark side of the female condition is being just like the feminists. Pointing out the truth and disallowing a cohort of people who are acting badly to hide behind their gender or race is never offensive and is never the problem. I’m vehemently disagreeing, however, with the constant attempts to change the narrative from “bad women” to “all women.”

Feminists suck. Women do not.

The narrative that TMG put out in his previous comment is no different than feminists changing “some men are rapists” into “ALL men are rapists.” JB has written long screeds on this site about demonizing half of the human race over the actions of some folks within that cohort, and yet you and TMG do this and I’m supposed to agree with you in lock step, when it IS OBVIOUSLY UNTRUE. It simply cannot be that every, single woman on Earth is as bad as you would like to pretend, because we would have ceased to exist as a species if that were true.

JB wrote “feminists suck.” TMG made it a specific point to correct her and say “NO, ALL WOMEN suck.”

That’s what the feminists do, man. If you can’t see that, then I can’t help you.

someguy

I already said that NAWALT. The vast majority of women are and for practical reasons for men, that’s all of them. How am I and TMG are different from fembots? That is where numbers come in.

looking at the US alone:

51.5% of men are married and 47.7 women married in 2010 (majority of them heterosexual so lets assume 50% for men and 47% for womens).

divorce rate: 53% or marriages, mothers get custody of kids 82% of the time. I say this because I couldn’t get numbers for US alimony stats, so I’m going to assume that it is the same rate for all divorcing men (IE men paying women).

meaning roughly a quarter of grown men end up getting divorced and 82% of the divorced men paying upchild support and alimony. lets do the math:

0.5 * 0.53 * 0.82 = 0.22

Now I mentioned 82% of women get custody of kids. Considering the biased court practices I’m going to say that 82% of women divorcing men raping the living shit out of men in court. Then from the total population of women marrying men?

0.82 * 0.53 * 100= 43% chance of married man getting ruined. Pretty big chunk if you ask me. Meaning roughly 2 out of 5 married men get raped in court. This far surpasses even the fake rape stats spewed by feminists.

A few things note: the vast majority of married couples are boomers since they outnumber the youth, and are better at staying together than the younger gens. So there is some age bias. So in short at least for the younger men, AWALT.

SuperAwesomeGuy

Bingo!

Disgruntled Old White Guy

“Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little.” – Dr. Samuel Johnson

SuperAwesomeGuy

Too bad that’s wrong. Seems like they have a ton of power in both areas.

Disgruntled Old White Guy

When he wrote that, in the 1700’s, it was still true.

feeriker

They didn’t have much power under the law in the eighteenth century when Dr. Johnson said/wrote this, but there’s no doubt that he’d revise the statement to reflect the modern reality if he was alive today.

Fred Al-Assad Flange

Based on what’s known so far the Murder Two charge is no doubt the one the Feds think will stick. Generally, the Feds’ policy is to only bring clean cases they know they can win, and will not “stretch” for a more severe crime they may not prove, thus risking the cleaner case. Murder one requires real premediation, and if all they have is her statement that she “got mad” when Cody grabbed her arm, it would sound like more of an impulse killing on the spot. Still intentional, still attempting to kill and succeeding, still Murder Two, and that is no picnic. Remember there is no parole in the federal system, so whatever time she does get she will serve.

Taylor

Yes. I don’t know too much about this case, but I do know 1st degree means premeditation and it has to be proved in court that it was 1st degree. The state chose 2nd degree because that’s what they feel they can prove. You’re also right about 2nd degree murder. It is no cake walk. Casey Anthony go off because there was no way the state could prove that it was 1st degree murder. They over charged and she walked.

Samson

JB, I note that you never commented on this crazy case that was in the news a couple months ago:

I’m constantly startled by the lack of impulse control that people exhibit. Every day, it seems, we’re bombarded by story after story of men and women throwing the rest of their lives away because they got really pissed off at someone else and killed them.

Just the other day, local to where I live, a father and son got in an argument, and the son grabbed a shotgun and blew his dad’s head clean off. The son is going down for 2nd degree murder, which will most likely have him behind bars until he’s ready to move into a nursing home, and for what? Because he couldn’t just walk away…

I can’t even imagine having so little control on my impulses that only 5 days after marrying someone – 5 days after being ensconced in marital bliss and telling that person that you loved them and would commit to them forever – you’d purposely kill them on a whim because you got in a fight.

It doesn’t matter, really, if she goes down for 1st or 2nd degree murder. It’s a federal rap. This woman likely won’t walk out of jail a free woman until she’s pushing 70, either way. She’s sold her entire life to that one moment; that one urge or impulse that she chose not to suppress, because at the moment it was satisfying.

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how people make these decisions. I’ve been so mad that I was literally seeing red and never, ever gave into the impulse to harm anyone, much less kill them.

How did the two of them end up at that particular spot on that cliff? That’s the real question.

I wonder what the text messages between them look like?

If she lured him there, to that specific spot where it would be relatively easy to push him off, that indicates forethought.

Pre-meditation.

She said they were arguing by text. That can be proven. Deleted texts aren’t really deleted and can be retrieved.

I’ll be curious to see what took place over the messenger app.

feeriker

I wonder if Cody didn’t see signs of BPD, or some other behavioral “red flag” in this woman before he married her and either 1) didn’t recognize the symptoms, or 2) was so pussy-smitten that he figured that, rather than RUN LIKE HELL, he would just try to “fix” her.

I’ve thought about this a little more, and wanted to make a comment that I’ve been ruminating on for a little while.

It goes a little something like this:

I’m truly surprised that this sort of thing hasn’t become much more common recently, with the uptick in pop culture references to it being empowering for a woman to kill or maim a man. Since the dawn of civilization, men have always been seen as disposable to a certain extent. Even though that sucks, it makes a sort of cruel biological sense, nonetheless – one man can make hundreds of babies. One woman, generally speaking, has a chance at creating 5 on average. So back in the day, you were much better suited to send your men to do the dangerous, dirty, deadly duties because, even forgetting the fact that they were physically more apt for the job, you could afford to lose them more than you could women, without suffering from population problems requisite with losing members of your tribe.

However, historically, that cruel fact hasn’t generally been celebrated in society the way that we are starting to see it being celebrated recently.

I’m going home, gonna load my shotgun,
Wait by the door and light a cigarette,
He wants a fight?
Well now he’s got one,
And he ain’t seen me crazy yet.
He slapped my face and shook me like a ragdoll, don’t that sound like a real man?
I’m going to show him what this little girl’s made of:
Gunpowder and lead

Apparently, being slapped in the face and shaken is justifiable reason to plan and execute a man’s murder. You GO, Grrrl!

My wife liked this song until I pointed out what it was actually about. She deleted it in disgust once she realized that this is about a woman planning to murder a man for slapping her.

And the preacher said he was a good man
And his brother said he was a good friend
But the women in the two black veils didn’t bother to cry

And cheating on your wife is good enough reason for her to team up with our mistress and kill you. You GO, Grrrrls!

Earl had to die!

So instead of leaving an abusive relationship and seeking help, we have to kill him. You have no responsibility at all for your situation, and the fact that he hit you means you have every right on earth to kill him now. Go, Grrrl!

Or, hell, the way that we reacted to the Lorena/John Bobbit fiasco. Imagine the narrative had HE mutilated HER genitals with a knife. But that’s not what happened, is it… Nope! She cut off his penis, so its fucking hilarious and we’re still going to be joking about it two decades later.

Or the more recent event where the group of scorned women got together, tied him up, and super-glued a guy’s penis to his stomach. Imagine if a group of scorned men got together and glued a woman’s vagina shut? Jesus, the fucking shrieking would be heard on the moon. But do the same thing to a guy? PUNCHLINE, MOTHERFUCKERS!

We’ve essentially created a pop culture climate where people are steeped in the idea that when a man causes discomfort to a woman in some way, it is a capital crime, but when a woman causes discomfort to a man, it was his fault somehow. If you go by pop culture, it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to kill a man for slapping her face…

…or, as in the real case above, grabbing her arm in a manner she didn’t like.

Hmmmm…

Are we starting to see the effects of the “earl has to die” pop culture in this case? I don’t know for sure, but I know where I’m putting my money.

There’s also “Independence Day” by Martina McBride, with it’s joyful chorus of “Let freedom ring!” about burning down her house with an abusive spouse inside. I believe it was used for years on Sean Hannity’s radio show.

At least Carrie Underwood’s “Before He Cheats” is only about a woman committing multiple crimes regarding destruction of property (and signing her name on it because: Smart!) because “her man” is chatting up another woman in a bar. I’m not holding my breath for the follow-up hit “Before She Goes to Prison on a Two-to-Five Stretch for Multiple Felonies”…

“today on Divorce Court: Will she choose pushing him off a cliff, the gun in her purse, or will she simply poison him?”

Sadly, I expect this to be one television soon.

Aye.

Based on my experiences with female cops, more women in the justice system should equal things right out. With men, I can play sweetness “oh gee, sigh, I guess my tail light is out, I will have my brother look at that, thank you, officer for protecting our city!” and they will use their discretion to determine that I am probably not a true criminal threat. A female officer may also just give a warning on something like that but she will first put me through a lengthy wringer to see if there is anything else I might possibly be doing wrong.

someguy

Horseshit. Women cover for other women when the dispute is with a man.

In reference to women vs feminists. We’re talking in generalizations here regardless – reading “women” and assuming “All women, with out exception, every last one of them” is being willfully disingenuous. When we talk about Men and Women – it’s never about every last one of them with out exception. Getting bitchy about it just clouds the conversation. If we have to replace every instance of “women” with “some large but undefined percentage of the homo sapiens female” to make you happy, well… Bite Me.

Yes a lot of men would choose to behave the same way given the opportunity, it’s a valid point – but ignores the ability to succeed. In any case, that hardly invalidates expanding the group of women from “feminists” to “women”.

Sadly, because the “feminists” are so successful at getting their views into the mainstream, I find myself having to remind myself that not all women (see above) are Jezebel/xojane feminists. I think the reality is; they are the minority. The problem is that the majority don’t seem to be calling bullshit all that often (present company excepted, and appreciated). I think when it’s pointed out – many women will see how skewed things have become, and realize that there are unintended consequences.

Being an old fart – I grew up with girls who dreamed of getting married – and by the time they were ready to marry – many of them had been indoctrinated into the culture. Hell, I’d been indoctrinated into the culture. I’m somewhat ashamed to admit I didn’t see the problem myself until it was for all intents and purposes – too late. Never Married, never engaged – and as things stand now, never will be.

Call bullshit when you see bullshit. Stem the tide – or get out of the way and let it go to hell. I’m at the point where I do both. I think we’ve passed the tipping point and as a culture, we’re done.. Homo Fucundia is being crushed in the short term by Homo Parasitus despite it’s failing long term strategy.

someguy

” The problem is that the majority don’t seem to be calling bullshit all that often (present company excepted, and appreciated). I think when it’s pointed out – many women will see how skewed things have become, and realize that there are unintended consequences.”

No, the problem is far worse. The majority of these women would be more than happy to use the privileges gained by feminists on their behalf to settle their disputes with men. Some of them just pay simple lip service to the BS men go through but ultimately they will do nothing to undo the damage caused by fembots. Afterall why would women bother to get rid of the biased feminist laws when they stand to benefit from them so much? (And yet men are expected to believe that women are such darling angels that wouldn’t harm a fly). And they will have no problem exploiting those privileges whenever they want to.

I can confirm this. I’ve had exchanges elsewhere and in email with another commenter on this site a while back where the women were declaiming with some ferocity that they were not feminists. When I pointed out that the arguments they were advancing were the exact same ones advanced by feminists, they nearly went apeshit, declaring “how DARE you call me a feminist, you sexist misogynist!!” When I persisted in pointing out their feminist arguments, they only got rantier until they went away in a huff.

I’d say the majority of women today are more than willing to enjoy the fruits of the feminist revolution and make the same arguments about sexism, equality, and misogyny as the feminists all while angrily denying the feminist label. In some ways they’re worse than the card-carrying feminists…

A man lies dead in his van, despite the family reporting him missing, and the landlady of the pub where his van was, repeatedly phoning the police. I’m sure if a woman was reported missing, it would be all over the national press and it would be assumed that some evil man had abducted her. In fact, that very same thing happened a few miles and several years earlier, when a woman crashed her car into a roadside lake and wasn’t found for a week. National press, abduction and rape stories.

Oh, and the local college (high school) where a girl accuses six men of rape, only to be arrested herself because of false allegations later. It also disappeared from the press.

I think the prosecutors think proving she is guilty of 2nd degree murder would be an easier case, and proving she planned it all would prove harder and she would likely go free is the prosecutors fail at proving that vital point.

It’s seems almost obscene to say that valuing men means you are willing to sacrifice a few to murderous women, but in truth, the only obscene thing is that women are prepared to sacrifice those men without giving up any of their own privileges.

Pick one. Men protect us. Or they sentence us.

In equal measure.

Are we to take it to mean that you would be okay with either?

Doug Spoonwood

“The reason the judiciary is still enmeshed in treating women more leniently is precisely BECAUSE they judiciary is still in the control of men, with the exception of family courts.”

Oh I see… according to above it follows that because men are in judicial power women get more lenient sentences and that men get harsher sentences. It’s not because those judges are corrupt, bigoted, or we have bad laws. It’s because men have the judicial power. So, by the above, if women had the power we wouldn’t have this problem. Give me a break.

“It’s really what it comes down to. Do you value men or do you not?

It’s seems almost obscene to say that valuing men means you are willing to sacrifice a few to murderous women, but in truth, *the only* [emphasis added] obscene thing is that women are prepared to sacrifice those men without giving up any of their own privileges.

Pick one. Men protect us. Or they sentence us.

In equal measure.

We cannot have both.”

Oh I see… the murdering of men by women is not obscene. This is nonsense and misandric.﻿

Zane

“The reason the judiciary is still enmeshed in treating women more leniently is precisely BECAUSE they judiciary is still in the control of men, with the exception of family courts.”

I think JB is just saying that the natural instict of men to protect women is at play in our courts. However, it’s not men in general who are the problem; it’s traditional men–those who continue to view women as big children or damsels in need of rescuing or protection, even from themselves. We need a new generation of judges and leaders who can put aside their natural bias, and who can treat men and women equally under the law.

We need MGTOW judges.

Ryan

“It’s seems almost obscene to say that valuing men means you are willing to sacrifice a few to murderous women, but in truth, the only obscene thing is that women are prepared to sacrifice those men without giving up any of their own privileges.”

Justifying male disposability has absolutely no business being associated with men’s human rights advocacy. Men losing their lives is not a sacrifice women bare, it is a sacrifice men bare. Men are the primary victims of their own deaths, get it! That should not even have to be said. Is it even possible for women to understand that men’s rights is about men and not about women. There is another world out there before the female vagina. Is it even possible for women in the men’s rights movement to see beyond themselves? This is precisely why I am a MGTOW before I am an MRA. This article is Mykeru’s law in action and the author should take some time to reflect on that before she claims to be about supporting men’s rights.

The mission creep and insidious attempts to turn the MHRA into yet another bastion of gynocentrism, is telling of where the motives of women within the movement really lie. Yes men are noticing it and no we are not fooled. If you are a female MRA and don’t like what I am saying, prove me wrong. Otherwise the evidence speaks for itself.

Oh and equating men losing their lives as being on a comparable level to women losing their “privileges” is laughable to say the least.

Young men like myself want full gender equality. Half measured attempts to appease us won’t work. We see right throught it. Gynocentrism is gynocentrism. Traditionalism is no better than feminism. Women are not getting their slaves back, so they better get used to being accountable for their own actions. If that scares some women, then maybe they might want to reflect on what it really mean’s to be human as opposed to being female. Unlearning gynocentrism is what women need to do, if they want to join men in future society.

I agree Ryan, and was more trying to highlight the obscenity of thinking disposability should be FREE. If you ARE going to be a traditionalist, and I am not one, justice seems to indicate that it should come with a price tag.

Ryan

Thanks for your reply and clarifying your position, I will be sure to relay it. Viewing and treating men as if they are disposable is obscene in and of itself, whether or not such disposability is given freely. Justice to me would indicate that traditionalists would realise the inherent inhumanity of treating a group of people as disposable to serve another groups benefit and consequently they would cease dehumanising men. The price tag that traditionalists pay for dehumanising men, is male violence, corruption and male tyranny. When you dehumanise a group of people, they dehumanise you in return. That is the cause and effect that traditionalists and feminists alike have not worked out yet.

When you say you agree with me. I am assuming what you mean by that, is that you don’t believe male disposability is justified regardless of whether or not women give up “privileges”. If I am wrong in assuming that, then please explain where and why. Thank you for clarifying that you are not a traditionalist. The MHRM is going to go nowhere unless it remains committed to rejecting gynocentrism in all it’s forms and states that clearly. Emphasis on stating it clearly. This lack of clarity is causing an issue within the MHRM at the moment and I think it needs to be addressed by AVFM. All that is required is for AVFM to clarify it’s position, so there is no doubt and no misunderstanding on what is thought of gynocentrism.

Gaining more exposure and popularity will mean nothing unless the MHRM conveys a strongly antigynocentric position which is visible and pervasive. Again emphasis on visible and pervasive. Without social change, there is no point in raising awareness of men’s issues like family court or education only to relapse into the same gynocentric social patterns and line of thinking that brought these problems about in the first place.

What would make my day and what would make a lot of men’s days, is if women started a hashtag “womenagainstgynocentrism”. You watch the reaction of the existing power structures to that type of campaign. That would flush out all of the men and women that pretend to go along with gender equality, men’s rights and antifeminism, only to further their agenda of getting men back on the treadmill. It is just an idea, but when I see things like HeForShe, such a bold provocative message is badly needed.

Gynocentrism is the psychological dynamic that has to be targeted and overcome. It can be overcome in our modern societies, but only if it is recognised for what it is and confronted with no compromise.